Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Meta-analysis of intravesical gemcitabine/docetaxel versus BCG in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer

Meta-analysis of intravesical gemcitabine/docetaxel versus BCG in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer
Photo by CDC / Unsplash
Key Takeaway
Note no significant RFS difference between gemcitabine/docetaxel and BCG in BCG-naive NMIBC.

This systematic review and meta-analysis included 1,634 patients with intermediate- and high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). The study compared intravesical gemcitabine and docetaxel combination therapy against BCG therapy in BCG-naïve patients. Follow-up was 24.0 months.

For high-risk BCG-naïve NMIBC, 24-month recurrence-free survival (RFS) was 78% (95% CI 70%-84%) with gemcitabine/docetaxel. In BCG-treated or unresponsive NMIBC, 24-month RFS was 41% (95% CI 34%-47%). Progression-free survival (PFS) at 24 months was 97% (95% CI 69%-100%) in high-risk BCG-naïve patients and 85% (95% CI 63%-95%) in BCG-treated patients.

In BCG-naïve intermediate to very-high-risk NMIBC, there was no significant difference in RFS between gemcitabine/docetaxel and BCG (hazard ratio 0.87; 95% CI 0.51-1.50). Similarly, no significant difference was observed in the risk of adverse events (odds ratio 0.58; 95% CI 0.21-1.60). Higher maintenance utilization was associated with significantly improved RFS at 24 months (p = .004).

Safety data were limited; specific adverse events were not reported, only the grade of serious adverse events was noted. The study phase was not reported. These findings suggest that gemcitabine/docetaxel does not significantly improve RFS compared to BCG in BCG-naïve patients, though PFS data require cautious interpretation due to wide confidence intervals.

Study Details

Study typeMeta analysis
EvidenceLevel 1
Follow-up24.0 mo
PublishedApr 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
This meta-analysis evaluated the oncological outcomes and safety profile of intravesical gemcitabine and docetaxel (Gem/Doce) in patients with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). Additionally, efficacy comparison to Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) therapy was aimed only for BCG-naïve NMIBC. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Studies evaluating Gem/Doce for NMIBC were identified through PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases. The primary outcome was recurrence-free survival (RFS). Secondary outcomes were high-grade RFS (HG-RFS), progression-free survival (PFS) and risk of adverse events (AEs). A subgroup analysis was performed according to the European Association of Urology (EAU) 2021 risk stratification and previous BCG exposure. A total of 14 studies, involving 1634 NMIBC patients (999 Gem/Doce and 635 BCG), were included. In high-risk BCG-naïve and BCG-treated (BCG-exposed/-unresponsive) NMIBC, Gem/Doce resulted in 24-month RFS of 78% (95% confidence intervals [CI] 70%-84%) and 41% (95% CI: 34%-47%), and 24-month PFS of 97% (95% CI: 69%-100%) and 85% (95% CI: 63%-95%), respectively. Five studies, including BCG-naïve intermediate to very-high-risk NMIBC, directly compared Gem/Doce and BCG, and demonstrated significant heterogeneity and no significant difference in RFS (Hazard ratio: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.51-1.50) and risk of AEs (odds ratio: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.21-1.60). Grade ≥ 3 AEs were found in 3.6% of Gem/Doce cohorts. Across Gem/Doce cohorts, higher maintenance utilization was associated with significantly improved RFS at 24 months (p = .004). However, maintenance effects were derived from between-study comparisons and should be interpreted cautiously due to heterogeneity in maintenance protocols and adherence. Gem/Doce provided acceptable RFS and PFS at 2 years among BCG-naïve patients and those who previously experienced recurrence after BCG. Gem/Doce demonstrated RFS and HG-RFS comparable to BCG in BCG-naïve NMIBC and had an acceptable safety profile.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.